Ask Militant Ginger

It's that time again! Another delve into the keyword questions that drove people to Militant Ginger.

Is Princess Diana more annoying dead than alive?

I don’t know – that’s a tough one to call. I would have to make a judgment call and say yes; because while the poor woman was still alive, at least the incessant media coverage about her was mitigated by the fact that ‘shedidaloddagudworkfurcharidy, mate.’

These days, she’s still rarely off the telly in one form or another (mostly conspiracy shows about her ‘murder’) but no longer contributes to children with AIDs or digging up landmines or anything jolly like that.

So incessant media attention MINUS charitable contributions EQUALS more annoying than ever.

What’s the Bluetooth Headset Captain Jack wears in Torchwood?

Sorry to disappoint you, guys – but Captain Jack’s stylish Bluetooth headset from the mediocre mess that was BBC’s Torchwood was actually a one-of-a-kind prop made from toilet rolls and washing up bottles in the BBC props department.

Ianto, Owen and the others, however, did use a real brand – the Jabra BT250v . You can get your own here.



Why do Christians hate gay people?

Christians technically don’t hate gay people.

Certain people claiming to be Christians (i.e. certain Evangelical groups) hate gay people, but they have as much to do with Christianity as Mormonism does. [Congrats, Militant Ginger. You managed to insult two religious demographics in a single sentence – Editorial Bear]

The truth be told, the official line is that no Christian ‘hates’ gay people. They just believe, rightly or wrongly [Erm, wrongly – Editorial Bear] that homosexuality is unnatural (despite it being practiced by a recorded 1,800 species of animals) and a sin against God.

They don’t hate the sinner, they hate the sin. This distinction does seem to confuse some Christians, hence the problems – but ‘hate’ is not the official line.

Anyway. While God was pretty clear on the matter (read Leviticus) his son, Jesus, was kind of ambivalent – a little like President Obama.

It’s possible to make a pretty convincing case against homosexuality using New Testament scripture (CK whipped me in this debate, so I have to give credit where it’s due) although I believe that Jesus was more about the ‘love your neighbor’ part of his belief system, rather than whether or not being gay was cool.

ибупрофен vs нурофен

I don’t even know what this means – nor do I know why it brought somebody to my blog! But I hope it has something to do with sexy Russian ladies in uniform.

I am so objectifying this lady right now.

Did Stephanie Meyer plagiarize Charlaine Harris?

Charlaine Harris, who wrote the Sookie Stackhouse series of vampire books, is often credited as the inspiration for Twilight. People have even accused Meyer of plagiarizing Harris directly – one commentor on this blog wrote “All you have to do is read Charlaine Harris' Sookie Stackhouse series and L.J. Smith's Vampire Diaries and there's the whole storyline in all 4 of the Twilight books. Someone needs to sue this woman because she's just getting credit for what others have done and watering it down into her disgusting version. It's NOT FAIR!”

Personally, I think it’s difficult to accuse Stephanie Meyer of plagiarism, because the whole vampire genre is SO trite and derivative that there hasn’t been an original work of vampire-inspired fiction for decades. In fact, Meyer managed to inject a rare bit of originality into the genre by mixing it with the romantic tribulations of a narcissistic, self-obsessed teenager AND in making the whole series of books a clumsy metaphor for abstinence.

So, good for her.




Why can’t antibiotics cure the common cold?

One of the most annoying things about living in America is how people will rush to the doctors for a prescription of antibiotics as soon as they have the sniffles.

These people are retarded. They’re the idiots breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria and driving up the cost of medical insurance. They’re too ignorant to research one of the most basic facts of modern medicine: Colds and flu are caused by viruses.

Antibiotics only treat bacteria. Taking antibiotics to cure your cold is utterly useless.

In fact, it’s more likely to make you sick than better, as each time you take antibiotics you perform a neat little holocaust of all the ‘good’ bacteria in your gut and screw up your digestion.

We can’t only hold the deeply stupid people who wolf down the pills responsible, though. Seriously lazy doctors have got into the habit of filling in these idiot’s prescriptions because it takes ten minutes to convince them that antibiotics are a waste of time, and just thirty seconds to give them the prescription they stupidly crave.

Educating the masses and convincing doctors not to pander to hypochondriacs is vitally important - unless we fancy all falling victim to an antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria five years in the future (hey, that's an idea for a book!)

The law, morality and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer

That’s not even a question. That sounds like the title of an undergraduate literature dissertation.

Twilight kind of went like this

Why do pirates wear eye patches?

Most people think pirates wore eye-patches to cover the hole in their skull where an eyeball used to be (remember, kids – cutlass fights are all well and good – right up until somebody loses an eye!)

But actually, patches were an essential accessory for bi-optic buccaneers as well.

On the sun-drenched seas of the Caribbean, an eye-patch was used during ship-to-ship combat. When a pirate descended into the bowels of a ship to loot the booty, he’d step from the sunshine on deck to the murky darkness of the unlit hold. As you’ll know if you’d ever had somebody shine a flashlight into your eyes, that renders you instantly blind – as it takes valuable minutes to build up ‘night vision’ after being in a well-lit environment.

Pirates would wear an eye-patch to force one eye to adjust to low-light conditions, so when they thundered downstairs into the lower decks of a raided galleon, they could lift their ‘patch’ and immediately see clearly in the darkness, without having to wait for their eyesight to adjust (which might lead to an adversary running them through in the mean time.)

It’s a good trick to remember. If you’re ever sneaking about outside, always keep one eye closed, so if the lights come on, or somebody shines a flashlight in your face, your ‘night vision’ won’t immediately vanish, leaving you temporarily blinded as soon as darkness falls again.

Which is better Nurofen or ibuprofen?

They’re both the same thing! Nurofen is an expensive brand-name pill that contains 200mg of ibuprofen – exactly the same dosage as the cheap, generic brand (but three times more expensive.)

Aside from an easy-to-swallow coating, they are exactly the same product – so use your noggin and plump for the generic pill when you get the chance. Anybody who tells you that brand-name pills have a ‘superior blend’ or similar rubbish are just buying into the hype.

Same drug, same thing – the only difference is whether you keep the difference in price, or you ‘donate’ it to a pharmaceutical giant (and believe me, baby, their profit margins make the oil industry look positively pauperish by comparison.)

Smith Cho drinks tequila in Knight Rider?

The delectable Smith Cho was one of the stars of Knight Rider’s aborted relaunch. In fact, as far as I was concerned, she was the star. Cute and funny and a mouthwatering sight in a bikini, she should have kept that show on the air even if Val Kilmer’s smooth-talking Ford Mustang didn’t.

There were other memorable parts of this episode - I just don't remember them

Anyway. In the third episode, Knight of the Iguana, our intrepid crew try to track down a stolen missile and to that end, Smith’s character – Zoe – poses as the hero’s wife and pours a bottle of tequila down him. It’s left ambiguous whether or not they got up to some tequila-fueled mischief later that evening - but I’d be thoroughly disappointed in the new ‘Michael Knight’ if he hadn’t! Girls like Smith Cho don’t come along very often.



Sweet, safe, grown-up pit bulls for sale?

If you’d read this post, you’d probably have realized that I’m not entirely convinced that pit bulls are ever entirely ‘safe.’ All dogs have the capacity to be dangerous - my wife was mauled by a tiny terrier when she was little - but I do believe that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than most.

They're still beautiful animals, though.

Pit Bull - Bad dog, or just bad publicity?

In ‘Burn Notice’, what was the waist leather bag Fiona wears?



Fiona Glenanne, the former IRA assassin and femme fatale of USA’s Burn Notice, wears a Leather Hip Bag during some of her more dangerous missions and you can get one of your very own here.

Did Stephanie Meyer support Proposition 8?

Stephanie Meyer's 'Twilight' saga has been wildly successful - especially amongst an audience that embraces romance, the supernatural and the concept of 'true love will out.'

Which is why Stephanie Meyer's publicity hounds are scrambling desperately to cover up accusations that Meyer, a devout Mormon who attended Brigham Young university in Salt Lake City*, donated a 'substantial' amount of money in support of 'Proposition 8.'

Prop 8, as I'm sure you already know, was the controversial voter referendum in California, which amended the constitution to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman' - thus rendering 18,000 same-sex unions null and void and banning gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

(The California supreme court upheld the amendment on appeal, but legitimized the 18,000 existing marriages.)

This isn't exactly surprising. 45% of out-of-state donations in support of Proposition 8 came from Utah, while 80% to 90% of all door-to-door campaigning against Gay Marriage was carried out by Mormons and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints**.

In all, Mormons donated approximately $20 million dollars to ban same-sex unions in California (some families donated their life savings and their kid's college funds.)

At the very least, a significant amount of money from Meyer's 10% 'tithe' she pays to the Mormon church would have been used to support Proposition 8.

However, accusations still abound that she donated more money directly to the campaign.

In any event, I know this would upset many fans of the 'Twilight' saga.

Most of the ones I know were avid opponents of Proposition 8 and would be very disappointed to learn that Meyer's romanticized version of 'true love' only extends to those of different genders.

NB - Bob, of the blog The Mormons Are Coming! refuted my claim in his blog post 'Did Twilight Fans Help Pass Prop 8?' He points out that no cash contributions were made to the 'Yes on Prop 8' campaign by the church. That being said, over $190,000 of 'in-kind' services were donated in direct support of Proposition 8 - which still leaves their members (including Meyer) culpable.

* ...actually Provo, Utah, an hour south of Salt Lake City, as corrected by the lovely Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor
** ...actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as corrected by Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor

Meghan McCain - Republican Rock Star?

Democrats have been rubbing their hands in glee at the tribulations of the Republican party.

They're politically bankrupt, ideologically challenged and searching desperately for leadership in the most inopportune places - Rush Limbaugh, anybody?

Yet quietly, methodically and efficiently, an unlikely GOP hero has been creeping into the spotlight - John McCain's daughter Meghan McCain.

Blond, beautiful and brainy, Meghan McCain makes an unlikely Republican, even by her own standards. Before her father stood for the presidency, she was a registered Independent with notably moderate views.

Clambering onto the campaign bus with her father, however, changed everything - starting with her signing up as a registered Republican.

During the 2008 presidential election, I argued that Meghan McCain was the Republican's secret weapon: She did something nobody else in the GOP had dreamed of - gave McCain's campaign a voice accessible to young, hip people (not easy, given that her Dad, no matter how cool he was, would still have been the oldest president to enter the White House if he'd won.)

She achieved this by hitting the information superhighway while she hit the campaign trail; giving us McCain Blogette - a regularly updated photo-blog showcasing her adventures on the trail.

Her blogs were fun, enthusiastic and real. She even kept readers up to date with hit tunes from her campaign play list (proving that those 'hip' credentials were genuine) and revealed the enthusiasm and support regular Americans had for her father's presidential bid (my favorite was when they visited a Harley Davidson convention.)

Meghan's grasp of social media gave her an audience that nobody else in the Republican party had access to - and the people who'd tuned in during the campaign continued to follow her even after the election ended.

That popularity stems from the way she continues to express her heartfelt, earnest beliefs. They resonate deeply with her audience, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that they defy traditional Republican dogma - like, for example, her most recent article for The Daily Beast - Memo to the GOP: Go Gay.

She confronted an ugly truth - that the Republican party needs to shed its homophobic reputation. While that belief sparked outrage amongst entrenched conservatives, it turned her into something of a Republican Rockstar amongst younger, more moderate voters - arguably the only political demographic that really matters.

"If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric," Meghan writes. She goes on to highlight the support the gay community once had from an unlikely Republican hero - their revered leader, Ronald Reagan. "The ultimate Republican rockstar helped fight anti-gay proposition because he knew it was wrong."

Most Republicans argue that Reagan could do no wrong, so maybe it's time they started following their mentor's example.

If anybody needed proof that Meghan's article was powerful and convincing, they need look no further than the wags at Comedy Central. She stirred up admiration from the acerbic wits behind The Daily Show, who gently poked fun in this article:

"Meghan McCain may claim to be a Republican… But — as is easily evidenced in her newest piece from The Daily Beast — she has clearly shown herself to be neither borderline mentally-disabled nor small-minded and bigoted…"

The fact that she's softened the most hardened of the 'elite, liberal media' means that Meghan's actually onto something. She's a Republican young people listen to - proudly standing for the best of everything the Republican party represents - small government, low taxation, personal responsibility and individual freedoms - while soundly rejecting every negative albatross hung around the GOP's neck.

If the entrenched die-hards in the GOP can summon up the courage to listen to her, Meghan McCain might prove herself to be voice that leads the Republican party out from political obscurity and into the 21st century.

Keep an eye out - I hope we'll be hearing a lot more from her.

Are People Born Gay?

Meet Ted Haggard - one of the skeletons in the Evangelical movement's closet that refuses to stay dead.

A former poster boy for the Christian right-wing, he was once on the forefront of the Moral Majority's resurgence in America.

Three years ago, author Jeff Sharlet boasted that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."

Ted himself spoke to President Bush and his advisers on a weekly basis, once joking that the only issue he didn't see eye-to-eye with Bush on was whether Ford or Chevrolet produced the superior automobile.

Ted Haggard was also one of the most vocal and outspoken critics of homosexuality, preaching a bigoted agenda from the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. He opposed gay marriage, same-sex civil unions and proudly declared that homosexuality was an aberrant and sinful lifestyle condemned in the scriptures.


But then, in one of modern history's most delicious twists of irony, Ted Haggard was 'found out.'

A male prostitute, Mike Jones, came forward and revealed that Ted Haggard had been a monthly customer of his for over three years, paying Jones for clandestine homosexual encounters fueled by crystal meth.

Suddenly, this shining star of the anti-gay movement was exposed as a meth-snorting, prostitute-frequenting fraud, who lived a double life behind his family's back. Jones revealed that Haggard had enjoyed snorting meth before he'd even met his current wife, was a frequent 'bottom' (the recipient of anal sex) and fantasized about an orgy with six teenage 'college guys.'

Following this exposure, the downfall of Ted Haggard was drawn out and messy. Initially denying the claims, sneering: "I have not, I have never had a gay relationship with anybody," he soon struggled against his church's attempt to brush his indiscretion under the carpet. They washed their hands of him, but annoyingly (and entertainingly) he refused to go down quietly.

In fact, HBO will soon be airing a documentary about him, in which he complains that he never claimed to be heterosexual in the first place and, while still 'struggling' with same-sex attraction, is "committed to living a heterosexual life, because I believe it's better for children to be raised by a mother and a father."

Reaction

Many Christians are highly critical of Ted Haggard's decision to air his sexuality on television; since Ted Haggard's downfall exposed many of the flaws and hypocrisies of the modern Evangelical movement.

At the time of the scandal, the first thing most people realized about Ted Haggard's exposure was how neatly it fitted into the Shakespearean philosophy of he 'doth protest too much.'

It's a generally accepted belief that the more aggressive and homophobic somebody's rants are, the more likely that they're just trying to overcompensate for their own repressed sexuality. Ted Haggard, as one of the most outspoken critics of homosexuality, neatly confirmed that belief when he was exposed.

But it's the second generally accepted belief that the Evangelicals are protesting. When Ted Haggard goes on television to claim that he'd never truly been heterosexual, he's going to confirm the theory that people don't choose to be gay - they're simply born that way.

Born That Way

As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. If it's proven that people are born straight, gay or somewhere in between, it neatly skewers the concept of homosexuality being a 'sinful choice' that can merely be renounced.

This is one of the most stringently enforced beliefs the Conservative Christians keep falling back on: The concept that people aren't 'born' gay. They believe that homosexuals 'choose' to be like that, or society (specifically liberal news channels) 'turn' them gay with their disgustingly permissive attitudes.

But while conservatives are quick to hold up scientific papers that deny the existence of a so-called 'gay' gene, the one thing you'll find noticeably absent from their arguments are the testimonies of any gay people. This is because, like many conservative beliefs, their arguments simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

Ask somebody gay whether they 'chose' their sexuality and you'll be generally laughed at.

In fact, I asked acclaimed novelist and journalist Paul Burston, editor of Time Out London's gay section, how he came to understand his sexuality (hopefully, he won't mind me reprinting it here):

Personally, I knew I was gay from a very young age - or if not 'gay', then certainly 'different'. The notion that someone would choose to be a member of a persecuted minority is ridiculous. It's a myth put about by homophobic assholes in an attempt to justify their bigotry.

Of course one can choose to act on the impulse or not, but the impulse is there. Homosexuality has existed in all cultures at all times, and rarely has it been actively encouraged - quite the contrary in fact. Despite, this gay men and women continue to come out, and fight for acceptance in an often hostile world. If they could choose to be straight, I dare say some of them would.

The only man I ever knew who tried to deny his true nature and live a straight life ended up hanging himself. Maybe the Christians think this was for the best?

I might not have a petri-dish containing the 'gay gene,' but I do have many gay friends and from speaking to them (something most Christians haven't done) there is no doubt in my mind that they're born with a predetermined sexuality, much like the rest of us.

The Ramifications

Whether you 'choose' your sexuality, or are stuck with it from birth, it still won't stop Christians claiming that homosexuality is abhorrent and sinful. In fact, it actually supports that notion.

When it comes to sexuality, the options don't just include 'straight,' 'gay' or 'somewhere in between.' Christians often find parallels between homosexuality and sexual preferences, like pedophilia or bestiality.

Texas senator John Cornyn argued: "If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn’t affect your everyday life. But that doesn’t make it right." (Los Angeles comedian Aziz Ansari then pointed out that a box turtle was a pretty random animal to choose for an example, suggesting that at; "one point or another, Senator Cornyn must have thought about making love to a box turtle.”)

If it's true that people are born with predetermined sexualities, it also would be true that those with illegal sexual preferences (such as toward children or animals) are also 'born that way.' Nobody would argue that pedophilia or bestiality are acceptable, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Sticky Points

This is generally the impasse that people reach in the debate about whether homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong.'

Conservatives argue that men and women are born 'male' or 'female' and designed to mate with each other, making homosexuality 'unnatural.' More liberal people point out that homosexuality is rife in nature, which means it's logical that such behavior would be exhibited by the 'human animal' as well.

Conservatives counter that argument by refuting the appeal to nature, stating that many animals devour their young, practice cannibalism and live polygamously. As man is 'better' than animals, they shouldn't allow themselves to practice cruel 'natural' behavior.

[Wait? Doesn't that totally demolish their 'unnatural' argument? Editorial Bear]

Conservatives would be better off retreating to the position, the one that equates homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. Neither of those sexual preferences is acceptable in civilised society and while people might be 'born' attracted to animals or children, they're quite rightly condemned if they act on their desires. What makes homosexuality different to either of those two abnormal sexual preferences?

The answer is: Consent.

The reason pedophilia and bestiality are both illegal is because practicing them implies rape.

Children are not old enough to give informed consent, so an adult who has sexual relations with a child does so against that child's will (even if the adult considers the sex to be consensual.)

Animals, likewise, can't give consent and therefore sexual relationships with animals is considered cruelty.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, involves two consenting adults, who enter willingly into the relationship without hurting each other or the rest of the community. It's that difference which presents a fundamental difference between homosexuality and other, abhorrent sexual preferences.

With most conservatives, the belief that homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong' is deeply ingrained - but allowing gay people to have committed relationships, recognized by law, isn't about whether gay sex is a 'sin' or not:

It's about whether two consenting adults have the freedom to live their lives as they choose to. Anti-gay activists are basically saying: "Even though your lifestyle doesn't impact mine, I choose to deny you the same rights I enjoy."

To me, that's as fundamentally 'wrong' as anything two men or two women could get up to behind closed doors.

Born Gay

But back to the question regarding whether people are born gay or straight... I've often argued that the answer is 'neither.' I believe sexuality is a pretty fluid thing and nobody is ever 100% truly 'straight' or 'gay.' Funnily enough, my conservative Christian chum CK argued exactly the same thing (sort of) in this post about Ted Haggard.

I believe men and women are born merely preferring men or women. They can really prefer men, or really prefer women, or be somewhere in between (or hover in the red area around illegal sexual preferences.) For example, I'd imagine my sexuality would look something like this:


As you can see from this chart, I completely prefer women, but I do own several Coors albums and admit that John Barrowman is a handsome fella.

John Barrowman: Pretty handsome fella

CK's sexuality, on the other hand, would probably look something like this:


As you can see, he prefers women even more adamantly, with that preference offset only slightly by the fact that he drives a Kia.

Hopefully CK has a good sense of humor!

When it comes to most 'straight' women I know, even the most rigid of them would probably admit to having a sexuality resembling this:

Straight women overwhelmingly prefer men, but I have yet to meet any woman who wouldn't willingly make out with Angelina Jolie 'just to see what it would be like.'

Angelina Jolie: Straight women's kryptonite

Personally, I think my belief about people's fluid sexuality is pretty convincing - even more so now I've got these pretty charts to back my theories up with.

I think if more people accepted that sexuality isn't quite as black and white as Christians would like to believe, I think there'd be far less fuss and bother about the question of whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. As long as no children or animals are being mistreated or abused, what does it matter what somebody's preferences are?

Many Christians argue that humanity has risen above the law of nature, so even though homosexuality is rife in nature, we shouldn't allow ourselves to define 'right' or 'wrong' merely by what happens out in the jungle.

But if humanity has truly risen above the laws of the animal kingdom, why on Earth shouldn't the rules regarding human sexuality be a little more sophisticated than those of mother nature?

After all, the world is overstuffed with six billion hungry people. The last thing we need is to have sexuality reduced to being merely the tool of procreation. If it was, we'd be knee deep in babies before we knew it!

Behead the Gays!

So I don't care if you disagree with gay marriage, or think that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Even if you do, you'd agree that the following is pretty indefensible:

US balks at backing condemnation of anti-gay laws
By DAVID CRARY, Fri Dec 19, 12:08 am ET

UNITED NATIONS – Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. Full story HERE.

In the Middle East, you can have your head cut off for being gay... And the United States is saying that they're not entirely comfortable condemning that.

Ironically, it's pressure from the Evangelical right and the Vatican that probably led to the US making this decision. The only countries that are joining them in refusing to condemn punishing the 'crime' of homosexuality are the fundamentalist Islamic countries (most of whom are the ones this declaration is specifically targeting.)

Isn't it funny how it's the ultra-religious groups who always fight tooth and nail to deny people their basic human rights? I mean, let's not forget that it was the Evangelicals and Baptists sixty years ago who were fighting to stop interracial marriage and civil rights. They'd rather side with Islamic fundamentalists (you know, the ones who are out to destroy 'the great Satan' of America) than 'those darn queers.'

On this occasion, you don't have to agree with gay marriage, or even agree with 'gay' as a lifestyle. But you have to agree that America's made a whopping error in judgment.

Just look at the 'team' we've picked to be part of. Saudi Arabia, Iran... These are all countries that criminalize homosexuality and WE decided to stick on their side.

Wasn't it the Bible which said: '...and ye shall judge them by the company they keep?'

A shameless nonsensical rant...

So here's why I'm always bitching about some (but not all - you know who you are) social conservatives - they really don't seem to get the idea of 'liberty.'

What I should be doing is bitching about the most extreme liberals - who really don't seem to get the idea of 'personal responsibility.'

Actually, those accusations work equally well the other way around!


The Far Right

Take some conservatives. They boast about being 'good Americans' and supporting 'liberty' and the 'constitution,' but they do no such thing!

The first amendment means that the social conservatives should stop trying to ban pornography! Barring child porn and bestiality (which require child abuse or animal abuse to produce) I think anything filmed between two consenting adults (and viewed by consenting adults) is fine.

If you don't like it - don't buy/rent it!

It is not up to the 'moral majority' (which is neither moral nor a majority) to dictate to the rest of us!

Likewise - let's have some T&A back on the television, please. I think after a 10pm watershed, American television should show all the nudity and bad language they want. If parents don't want their kids to be 'corrupted' then DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT.

It's not the network's responsibility to monitor what kids watch (after a certain time.) If parents don't like it, they really shouldn't let their kids have TVs and access to the Internet in the privacy of their bedroom.

Don't they remember being kids themselves? Of course they want to watch the naughty stuff! (Back in my day, I used to thumb through Jilly Cooper novels just to get to the saucy bits.)

It's called the 'off' button people. Learn to use it. The television is no longer your kid's babysitter! (The DVD player is.)

Let's move on...

How about teaching creationism (old school creation doctrine, not fluffy 'intelligent design') in schools? It's totally stupid, but I'll meet the social conservatives half way on this one...

If people want to home school their kids, or send them to private school, I think it's fair enough. Teach the we tykes whatever you want (thank goodness there are responsible home schoolers like Coffee Bean who give their kids a well rounded education - and still manage to squeeze in the religion.)

I think teaching 'new earth' creationism is ridiculous and still say it's tantamount to child abuse - but it's your money, they're your kids - if parents want to send them out into the 'real world' thinking that the earth is six thousand years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens, that's their (ir)responsibility.

But public schools, funded by taxpayers money, should only teach secular, proven fact. Not even intelligent design, which is meaningless and unprovable.

And if parents don't like that? What about letting them have 'vouchers' so their property tax can be refunded to pay for their kids to attend religious or private schools?

Hmm. Why not? Then they'd stop demanding prayer in public school, intelligent design in the public classroom and stuff like that. There would be the opportunity for them to have education their way and leave us to have (sensible) education our way. I think that's a fine compromise.

Okay, onto gay rights.

Let's talk turkey for a second. Despite long arguments with CK, I suspect he's probably right.

The Bible probably does say that "teh ghey" is wrong, ghastly, unnatural and an abomination. But the Bible says a lot of things that turned out to be rubbish (and a few things that didn't) and I'd prefer to look at a more progressive picture.

Men and women, just like animals in nature, occasionally turn out 'a bit gay.' They seek sex and relationships with their own gender. And you know what? That's absolutely fine with me.

Seriously, it's like what I wrote about pornography. If their sexual and romantic tastes were directed towards children or animals, that would be wrong (since it would involve or risk child or animal abuse.) But between two consenting adults? I think that's fine.

It doesn't do me any harm whatsoever - and that goes back to the essential rule about American society - I don't have to like it, but if that's what you want to do with your life, leave me free to do what I want to with my life in return.

So whether it's marriage or civil partnerships, I think there should be a system in place for men and women to enjoy the same rights and protects of a married heterosexual couple (and suffer the same divorce problems if that relationship breaks up.)

Anybody who disagrees? They're sticking their oar in and trying, once again, to dictate to America what is and isn't 'moral' according to their own narrow-minded agenda. That's not acceptable. You don't dictate how I live my life (unless if affects you, which, in this case, it doesn't.)

Abortion. How about that?

Well, I can see where social conservatives are coming from here. But when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, they're not the ones facing the most difficult decision of their lives...

Imagine that you're a forty-five year old single woman and you're accidentally pregnant (and there's a good chance that the kid will be seriously disabled when it's born.)

You're not financially, emotionally or physically ready to bring this baby into the world... Yet somebody else, sitting in the smug comfort of another state (and another life,) decides that they should make the decision about what's best for you and your unborn baby. Then they take no responsibility for what happens after they've decided that your baby should be born.

I don't know. It's a trickier issue because we're talking about another life. But I think, within reason (say, up to 13 weeks, or when there are medical issues) we might just have to accept that what's best for mother and baby might, just might, be up to mother and baby to decide.

And I don't think that's a decision any pregnant woman makes lightly (or forgets in a hurry.)

The Far Left

Let's leave the social conservatives alone for a second and move onto the liberals. These guys can be just as bad, if not worse.

I mean, take Barack Obama, dictating that the oil companies 'make too much profit.'

I'm sorry, but if you run a private business and operate within regulations, you should be free to make as much damn profit as you like! It's not like the oil companies are even the biggest businesses in America. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions more than Exxon. What are you going to do? Start redistributing their profits next?

Good luck, America. I think the supply of new and exciting drugs will start to dry up pretty damn quickly when that happens.

This is America - the land of opportunity. You should have the freedom to (legally) make as much profit as you want - and keep it (or redistribute it to your shareholders.) The government should butt out!

While we're at it, what is up with this reckless abandonment of personal responsibility? I thought the conservatives were bad enough, trying to ban pornography. Liberals want to ban smoking and trans fat (and have succeeded in New York.)

I hate eating in a smoky restaurant as much as the next person - but I think there should be bars in New York that are allowed to let smokers in. Give people the choice - smoking or non smoking. If they want to go to a smoking bar, that's their responsibility and their right.

Likewise, if you don't want to have smoke blown in your face, you should also have that right. I agree with some specific 'smoking' bars, but I also agree with a ban in every other public venue, like cinemas and sports arenas.

It's the same with trans fat.

Okay, so it's really, really bad for you - but nobody's forcing you to shove Kentucky Fried Chicken down your gullet. If you eat too much fatty food and have a heart attack, that's your shauri. You made that choice (and this is America. It's your right to.)

Banning trans fat is the start of a slippery slope. Next what'll it be? Dairy? Salt? If the liberals had their way, we'd all be eating nothing but a homogenized vegan slop.

It gets worse. I recently heard of a bartender on Long Island who got arrested because a woman he'd served got into her car (over the limit, since she'd been drinking elsewhere) and killed some poor kid on her drive home.

Lock that lady up and throw away the key - I'm fine with that. But the bartender? He was just doing his job? I know bartenders are not meant to over serve, but by suggesting he's responsible for the girl drink-driving also suggests that she isn't.

**adopt sarcastic tone** Poor little lamb. Despite the fact that she was probably drunk when she rolled up to the bar in the first place, it's not her fault that she drove drunk. It's that mean ol' bartender, who served her a drink even though she was already tipsy. All because she would have yelled at him if he didn't.

Liberals seem so desperate to relieve us of responsibility for anything. Why doesn't anybody man up, hold up their hands and say: "Yeah, I made a bum decision and I take responsibility for it?"

That'd be refreshing.

The Big Picture

At the end of the day, the far left and the far right have the same vision. They see America and it's problems and want to fix them.

Statistics prove that banning smoking saves lives. People claim that banning pornography would reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The Bible said that the world was created in six days and somebody in the Tennessee backwoods wants to teach their boy that (and demand that every copy of Jurassic Park get burned.)

Perhaps banning these things would work for the 'greater good.' But manipulating society to 'make it better' is social engineering. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in Communist China or North Korea.

This is America. Whether they're right or wrong, we should have the right to make our own decisions here.

It's inalienable, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit doesn't interfere with anybody else's, why should it be restricted?

In the upcoming election, people banter around words like 'patriotism' and phrases like 'a good American.' Well, isn't this what being a good American is all about? Defending the freedoms that the founding fathers fought and died for?

Even if they never anticipated that those freedoms would be the right to produce pornography, marry another man and gorge ourselves to death on fried chicken!

California Supreme Court gives Thumbs Up to Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court has overturned a state law banning gay marriage, declaring that it violates the state constitution.

But despite that fact, conservative groups in California are pushing to amend the state's constitution to add a clause: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

My question is: Why?

I mean, seriously... Why bother? Why is it so important to conservative idiots like the National Organization for Marriage to ban same-sex couples from committing to a life-long relationship?

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to condone it. But this is America and one of the most fundamental rights is that of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

The US Supreme court even recognized that: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Two people of the same-sex getting married does not affect me in the slightest. It doesn't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Since nobody's life is altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to get married, why should anybody have to right to oppose it?

By supporting gay marriage, I'm not advocating homosexuality or what conservatives laughingly refer to as 'the homosexual agenda.' All I'm doing is supporting an American's personal freedom. The right to make their own decisions.

I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives vote Republican - the party that's meant to protect Americans from the government interfering in their personal choices.

Conservatives demand the right to bear arms and the right to practice whatever retarded religion they want. Yet when somebody else demands their rights, like two consensual adults deciding to have a committed relationship, the conservatives want to the government to stick their oar in.

What these idiots don't realise is that they're weakening their own positions. After they've empowered the government to decide who can and can't get married, they'll find themselves in a much more vulnerable position when it comes to defending their own rights.

Second amendment gun-nuts and fundamentalist religious loonies really ought to be reaching out to the gay community instead of attacking it. They're both actually fighting the same battle. The conservatives are just too stupid to realise it.

Why do Christians hate Gay People?

“Texas senator John Cornyn’s argument against gay marriage is: ‘If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn’t affect your everyday life. But that doesn’t make it right.’ Now, I myself was not a psychology major, but after hearing that, I think it’s safe to assume that at one point or another, Senator Cornyn must have thought about making love to a box turtle.” Aziz Ansari, New York comedian.

Have you ever wondered why the fundamentalist Christian right-wing of America is so obsessed with gay people?

I mean, they're totally obsessed with homosexuality. It's one of the cornerstones of evangelical politics. It inspires more bile than pretty much anything else - and more bullshit. I recently read about a so-called 'Homosexual Agenda' on a right-wing site. It makes gay people sound more like the proponents of a 'new world order' than fellas who dig other fellas.

You've got to wonder where this obsession stems from. Personally, I believe it's all Freudian. After all, it's a commonly held belief that homophobia - which translates as fear, rather than hatred of gay people - often stems from a homophobic person's denial and repression of their own homosexual impulses.

Which makes sense when you take outspoken pastor Ted Haggard, who was voted one of the most influential evangelical preachers in the United States for his determined stance against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

He once stated; "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly con­demned in the Scriptures." This was shortly before he was revealed to have been involved in a three-year long homosexual relationship with a male prostitute.

Or Paul Barnes, founder of Grace Chapel in Colorado. Despite preaching about how homosexuality was an unnatural sin condemned by scripture, he confessed in December 2006: "I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy. . . ."

It seems wherever you look, more and more outspoken critics of homosexuality are proving the stereotype right by admitting their own uncertain sexuality.

The Christian Position

If you ask a fundamentalist Christian why they hate gay people, you'll generally hear the same list of arguments.

1. It's unnatural.
2. It's unhealthy.
3. It's considered a sin by the scripture of the Bible.

That's what Christians CLAIM is the basis for their dislike of homosexuality and public acceptance of a gay lifestyle - things like gay marriage (or civil partnerships) and the right for gay people to adopt.

However, on even the briefest examination of their arguments, it's clear to see the Christian anti-homosexual agenda is simply riddled with holes.

Let's examine the arguments:

1: Homosexuality is unnatural.

I'm not sure what the criteria for 'unnatural' is, but homosexuality is rife in nature. National Geographic and Wikipedia have lists of literally hundreds of mammals who have been observed engaging in same-sex activity.

Bonobo monkeys are an excellent example, with 100% of researched animals involving themselves in homosexual or bisexual relationships with other Bonobo monkeys.

Considering that a record 1,500 species of animals have been recorded displaying homosexual behaviour, the argument that homosexuality isn't a normal, everyday part of nature's rich tapestry falls utterly flat.

Of course, some Christians refute this logical argument on the grounds that they believe mankind did not evolve from animals. If mankind is not evolved from monkeys, why should we emulate their behavior by tolerating homosexual behaviour in society?

This is a rather contradictory argument, however. If you're going to distance mankind from the animals from which we evolved (or not, depending on your beliefs) it's suddenly so much harder to claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural.'

Homosexuality is entirely natural in the wild, so in order to claim it's 'unnatural' in mankind is to hold humanity to a different standard than nature. In that case - who has the authority to argue that homosexuality is or isn't 'natural' in polite, civilized homosapien society?

Like most Christian arguments, it all circles back to the Good Book. Nature itself might not say that homosexuality is 'unnatural,' but the Bible apparently does. In that regard, the Christian right-wing has already surrendered this first position against homosexuality by falling back on their third argument.

2. It's unhealthy.

Mike Huckabee, the most conservative Republican candidate for the White House, proudly declared: "Homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

He's talking, of course, about AIDS.

When AIDS and HIV first arrived on the scene, in the early eighties, it was often thought of as a 'gay' disease. It ran rampant through the gay community in the United States and while the heterosexual infection rate is now higher than amongst the gay community, it's still a disease that's often considered part of the homosexual lifestyle.

The fact that AIDS is still a hotly discussed issue within the gay community encourages conservatives to argue that it's proof that homosexuality is an unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle. Condoning homosexuality, as far as they're concerned, puts everybody at risk from infection.

Certainly, in the early days of the AIDS crisis, this argument carried some weight. The heterosexual community was generally only exposed to AIDS and HIV when a blood-doner gave tainted blood (infecting the recipient) or a man on the 'Down Low' maintained heterosexual relationships while at the same time engaging in clandestine homosexual encounters.

With much more being known about AIDS and HIV these days, those risks are reduced. Blood screening has practically eliminated the risk of infection via transfusion and a growing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle has reduced the number of men who feel pressured to repress their natural inclinations and live 'double lives' (except in the religious community, examples being Ted Haggard and Paul Barnes.)

These days, it's fairly clear that the major infection risk somebody with AIDS poses is if you sleep with them. This makes the fervent outbursts of Ted Haggard that much more duplicitous. When he was preaching about the health risks of homosexuality and what a risk it posed to the community, it was clearly because he was exposing himself to that risk and he was scared.

The Christian condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle actually exposes more people to risk. As Barnes and Haggard illustrate, men who feel pressured to hide their true sexuality often maintain heterosexual relationships in public and have homosexual encounters in private.

Religion prevents these men being able to live their desired lifestyle - and in maintaining a straight 'front' they're exposing their wives to the very same health risks they protest against.

3: It's considered a sin by the scripture of the Bible.

This is where the Christian argument falls back to during every engagement. The Bible apparently says that homosexuality is a sin - and therefore should not be condoned.

While the scriptural argument might be the cornerstone of the Christian position on homosexuality, it's not a very good one. Even before you actually examine the evidence contained within the Bible, you have to consider a very important question:

The Bible apparently says that homosexuality is a sin. But so what?

UnAmerican

Because America is not a Christian society. Sure, the United States might have been founded on Christian principles, but at least two of the founding fathers were confirmed atheists and since the foundation of America, the demographic has broadened to include Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Seiks and Muslims.

What unifies the people of America is not the Bible, but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - and they say nothing on the subject of homosexuality.

In fact, the first line of the Declaration of Independence is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

During the Civil Rights movement, the right of a person to have a consensual, monogamous, long term relationship with another human being was constitutionally protected by 'the pursuit of happiness' in the 1967 Supreme Court Case Loving vs. Virgina. In that case, it was an interracial relationship - but the precedent was set.

Christians can legitimately argue that the word 'marriage' refers only to a man and a women. But allowing two people of the same gender to have an officially mandated civil partnership with each other - offering the same protections, benefits and standing as a heterosexual marriage - is quite clearly the constitutional right of every American couple who decide to live that way.

If a Christian believes their values are truly in conflict with the Constitution, they have to ask themselves: Which are you? A Christian or an American?

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive - but many fundamentalist Christians choose to make them that way. It's evident in the political positions they take regarding homosexuality.

Fundamentalist Christians either want to appoint right-wing, conservative Supreme Court Justices who will ignore the precedent set by Loving vs. Virginia, or they lobby to change to Constitution itself to include the rule that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.'

The fact that the Christian right wing cannot support their own position without manipulating or amending the Constitution illustrates just how conflicted it is with the spirit of American society.

Inaccurate

But moving on, it's time to examine the Bible itself and see exactly what it says about homosexuality.

Now I've often found discussing such issues with fundamentalist Christians to be difficult. As far as many Christians are concerned, they know the Bible better than any non-believer and often dismiss any notion of discussing the subject with somebody who hasn't already taken their blinkered position on the subject.

But that's just an arrogant statement - and incorrect. For one thing, the ability to quote every line of the Good News Bible does not make you a Biblical scholar. Most fundamentalist Christians are only familiar with the Bible they use in Church and in Bible study. They argue that this is the entirely accurate, heavenly inspired Word of God.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

But it's not. It's a very long way away from that.

The Good News Bible or King James Bible is merely an English translation of a Biblical anthology. It MUST be considered as such. If anybody has learned a second language and done translation work, they must know that there are several different ways of translating something and to believe that any English-language translation of the Bible is 100% accurate is to assume that the original translators were as divinely blessed as the Bible's original authors.

Take some of the translation problems Biblical scholars encounter. In one example, in Matthew 5:22, the Revised Standard Bible says Jesus warns people: "Whoever insults his brother, he must answer for it in court."

The King James Bible translates this somewhat more closely to the original Koine Greek text, which comes out as: "That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The King James Bible used the word 'Racha' as one of the insults Jesus warns against using. At that time, no translation for the word could be found - so the term was left untranslated. However, a more recent study of ancient Hebrew and contemporary Greek indicates that the word 'Racha. was synonymous with the Hebrew term "rakh" - which indicates a man of weak, effeminate and homosexual appearance. Historian Warren Johansson equated to the common anti-gay slur 'faggot.'

So therefore, in the original Matthew 5:22, Jesus warns his followers not to make fun of men of effeminate or gay appearance. He specifically uses that term. Hardly supporting the traditional anti-gay position Christians take, is it?

The Christian Argument

When it comes to scriptural evidence condemning homosexuality, Christians are largely wise enough to ignore the Old Testament. Although the Old Testament position on homosexuality was explicit - so were positions on a variety of other things, which are incompatible with a modern Christian lifestyle.

For example, Leviticus 18:22 says: “And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

However, according to Leviticus, it is an equal 'abomination' to eat shellfish, pork or rabbit, so considering even fundamentalist Christians enjoy a good pork chop or shrimp cocktail, you can't base an argument against homosexuality on Leviticus. That would just be hypocritical.

Instead, Christians argue that the New Testament provides ample evidence that Christianity condemns homosexuality. Although this isn't entirely accurate.

In actual fact, there are only two explicit references to homosexuality in the New Testament, both appearing in the Pauline epistles.

That in itself is interesting. Paul the Apostle did not actually know Jesus. He didn't actually know anybody who knew Jesus. In fact, he claims to have received the Gospel from a vision of the resurrected Jesus while traveling on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, even assuming the translations of Pauline epistles appearing in the King James Bible or Good News Bible are remotely close to the original texts, it's worth noting that by historical standards, Paul's gospel is anecdotal at best.

In Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 , Paul wrote:

"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul says:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are two major issues with accepting these two references to homosexuality as absolute proof that it was condemned in the Bible.

First off, it was Paul speaking, not Jesus. Paul the Apostle is not God. Paul the Apostle is not Jesus. In fact, Paul hadn't even met Jesus. Therefore, it seems entirely contradictory to base a scriptural argument against homosexuality purely on the words of a man other than Jesus.

Especially since the only reference Jesus himself made about homosexuality in the entire New Testament was to condemn people who insult men who were 'Racha' or seemingly homosexual.

Apart from that, Jesus doesn't say a thing about homosexuality - and considering just how important the issue is amongst modern-day fundamentalist Christians, I find it very troubling that the spokesman of their entire religion had nothing to say on the subject.

Secondly, Paul's comments are in themselves contradictory to the Christian faith. The basic philosophy of Christianity is that anybody can inherit the Kingdom of God as long as they accept Jesus. Absolutely anybody regardless of the sins they have committed.

Evidence of this comes from a far more accurate source than Paul's epistles. Both Luke and Matthew recount the last hours of Jesus' life, in which he spoke to two thieves crucified to the left and right of him by the Romans.

The 'Good Thief' accepted being crucified; "for we receive the due reward of our deeds." But he recognized Jesus as the son of God and asked: "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Jesus responded: "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:39-43.

And THAT'S the basis of Christianity. That anybody - regardless of what they've done throughout their life - will be welcomed into heaven as long as they accept Jesus.

So when Paul pompously argues that gays and drunkards won't 'inherit the Kingdom of God' then he's contradicting none other than Jesus himself. I personally believe Paul is arrogantly pontificating his own beliefs using Jesus' name to give himself credibility.

After all, if you believe Corinthians 6:9-10 condemns homosexuality, it also equally condemns drunkenness, talking about somebody behind their back and even obesity (...nor the greedy...)

And anybody who's spent any time around fundamentalist Christians will realize that excommunicating all two-faced gossipers would leave the Churches pretty empty.

The Pauline epistles are simply flawed - from both a historical and a scriptural basis. Therefore, inarguably, using them as evidence in the argument against homosexuality leaves that position equally flawed. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That's a fact, documented beyond any reasonable doubt within the Bible.

Let's Get Real

Having examined the flaws in the fundamentalist position, it's worth taking a step back at looking at the big picture. The anti-gay argument is seriously flawed. Only in the narrowest, most blinkered interpretation of scripture is it possible to determine that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible (although not by Jesus himself.)

That raises the question: Why are fundamentalist Christians SO vehemently opposed to accepting homosexuality?

I believe the answer to that one lies in recent history.

Man & Woman?

Currently, the major sticking point Christians are unwilling to budge on is the subject of gay marriage. Not just the term 'marriage,' but the idea of offering same-sex couples in committed relationships the same legal protection married couples have.

It's rather alarming to look back just forty years to see a similar position being upheld in the southern United States - protesting marriage between the races.

During the first half of the 20th century, all across the United States, there were laws enacted to separate black people from white. They went to different schools, rode different buses and even drank out of different water fountains. Top of the list of 'racial crimes' was an interracial marriage between a white person and a black one.

In 1967, Loving vs. Virginia was a hotly contested court case that saw a black woman marry a white man in the District of Columbia (as was allowed in the American capital.) When the married couple moved back to their home state of Virginia, a grand jury issued an indictment against the couple as they'd married in violation of Virginia's segregation laws.

On sentencing the couple, the judge announced the following:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Note the opening words: 'Almighty God.'

Just like in the argument against gay marriage, it's the Lord's name used (taken in vain) and it's apparently his will that blacks and whites be separated.

But the Lovings did not capitulate - and the court case reached the Supreme Court - the highest court in all of America. Nearly ten years after their original indictment, the Lovings were allowed to remain married, on the grounds that Virginia's segregation laws were unconstitutional and "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."

Chief Justice Warren explained his ruling:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Note that the gender of the 'person' a man is free to marry is never mentioned. Some people argue it's implied - but other people logically argue that the only requirements to marry is mutual consent by both parties (rendering senator John Cornyn’s 'box turtle' argument void, since a box turtle, or any animal, is incapable of offering informed consent to marry.)

Bigotry in Faith's Clothing

The alarming thing comparing Loving vs. Virginia to the modern day argument against gay marriage are the similarities. It seems like it's the same old cast, performing the same old script, just four decades later.

While certain Christians were instrumental in securing Civil Rights for African-Americans, the core support for racial segregation across the United States came from the majority of 'decent,' normal, Church-going Americans. The same people who are now protesting against gay marriage.

In fact, the scriptural arguments were quite similar, too - with the 'mark of Cain' often being interpreted as dark skin, thereby offering scriptural evidence to support the assumption that black people were spiritually inferior to whites.

Such scriptural interpretations were clearly just cynical attempts to hide racism and bigotry behind the legitimacy of religion. I honestly don't see how the Christian position on homosexuality is any different today.

It's quite clear that the most verbal opponents of gay rights aren't fighting against homosexual equality for any 'greater good' or 'higher calling.' They simply don't like gay people. They're scared of the effects 'gay' people will have on good, old-fashioned 'family values.'

But that's no different to white people in the 1950's being scared of the effect 'negro culture' would have on polite, white society - heralded by the arrival of 'rock & roll' music.

It doesn't necessarily mean the Church goers in the 1950's or the fundamentalist Christians of today are necessarily bad people. They're just not exposed to homosexual people in the same way those of us in urban areas are - and are therefore apprehensive about people they know nothing about (aside from whispered rumors and Church mandated anti-homosexual propaganda.)

This is why the anti-gay movement is much stronger in America's heartland than places like New York City or California. In New York, we know that the gay community wants nothing more than the basic civil liberties the 'heartland' of America was denying black people less than half a century ago.

The right to avoid discrimination. The legal protection of an officially recognized, consensual, monogamous, committed relationship. The right for certain aspects of 'gay history' like the Stonewall Riots to be recognized - just like important events in the history of the Civil Rights movement are recognized.

In protesting so vehemently against this, I'm worried the fundamentalist Christians are being enormously hypocritical. In the New Testament, Jesus certainly never said anything about homosexuality, so by putting his name behind a movement to repress and deny other human beings their basic human rights seems totally against everything Christianity is supposed to stand for.

"They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." Titus 1:16